• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religious People are Not Stupid

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
lack of belief is an indication of your fate

you are dust.

it's just a matter of your chemistry moving to .......nothing

I think we are too complex to be some sort of accident

and I believe life after death to be a consequence to how you lived here and now

of course.....if you do not believe in continuance
then likely.....you won't

Thank you for your somewhat cryptic response.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I must point how funny this sounds in the light of your very first paragraph ( which I happen to agree with ).
You don't know if those scriptures were meant to interpreted literally or metaphorically.
The men who authored those stories did not know how the world or humanity began, and they knew that they did not know. But as with every other culture on Earth, they invented the stories to help them understand and explain to each other how we humans came to be as we are. The stories were never really about the past, they were about the present, because that was all they knew. How could it have been otherwise?
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans.

You think you know because of your arrogance. Humans know things basically through faith in testimonies. You take the existence of black holes for a fact simply because the testimonies of our scientists in this perspective are reliable and credible. It's not because you have the proof or evidence. It's rather you believe that the scientists (as eyewitnesses) have the evidence. This is the fundamental way of how humans approach a truth of any kind, including but not limited to science.

Ghosts and etc. are started with possible human testimonies/witnessing. However the credibility may be in question. The fundamental difference between ghosts and flying spaghetti is the former doesn't lack human accounts of testimonies while the latter lacks. It is thus apples and oranges to equate ghosts to red unicorns. Red unicorns are the absence of human testimonies while ghosts are the presence of human testimonies but with credibility in question. That lies the difference (fundamentally very much different, i.e., one is a false while the other is a possible true).

We can't confirm ghost mostly because it's out of our science to reach. Science is about a truth confirmed by establishing repeatable experiments. Ghosts are about the advocate that a spiritual realm exists besides our physical realm. Humans are incapable of going into this realm to establish experiments to confirm anything. This advocate on the other hand is much older than the existence of our science itself. That is, long before science even emerged, ghosts had already been categorized as outside the scope of our science. This realms thus can only be reached by faith in human testimonies/witnessing, even if it truly exists.

That said. Certain kind of spirits need or have the passion to posses a host. They can be cast into a group of pigs (a story of the Bible). It means that they can live inside an animal such as a donkey. That makes a donkey appears to be able to speak human languages. The perception of the spiritual realm from our end can be visually and verbally independent. It means that we may hear something without seeing it, or see something without hearing it, or both see and hear it. In Balaam's case, he hears what the spirit says but without actually seeing both the spirit (he sees only the donkey in our realm) and the angels the spirit trying to warn about.

Here I am not trying to prove anything. Just to try to open the possibilities which you have considered impossible.
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
The men who authored those stories did not know how the world or humanity began, and they knew that they did not know. But as with every other culture on Earth, they invented the stories to help them understand and explain to each other how we humans came to be as we are. The stories were never really about the past, they were about the present, because that was all they knew. How could it have been otherwise?

Two points here:

1) Even so, how would you determine the stories really weren't meant to be interpreted literally ? Why couldn't they be falsehood posed as truth ?

2) What about the typical response: revelation from God ? That's how they knew ( or could know ) the past.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You are reading too much into it. Remember, Genesis is only one of thousands of creation stories that man has concocted.

In the case of Eden, it's just a put-down story in keeping with the views of one group of people: God made everything perfect and man messed it up.
The stories that last through time are the ones that speak to the most universal human themes. To ignore HOW mankind "messed it up" is to ignore the more significant and pertinent message of the story. Because it tells us how we may STILL be messing it all up.

Dismissing an idea before fully understanding it is a poor way to approach life, don't you think?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Even so, how would you determine the stories really weren't meant to be interpreted literally ? Why couldn't they be falsehood posed as truth ?
Because they used the stories for and among themselves. They didn't create them to control or exploit others. Why would they be deliberately lying to themselves and each other?
What about the typical response: revelation from God ? That's how they knew ( or could know ) the past.
The authors made no such claim.

People author fictitious stories all the time; delivered in such a way as to imply that the events "actually happened". And yet most people understand that they did not actually happen that way. Still, we are able to discern the ideological purpose of the story if we are willing to give it some honest consideration, and maybe a little discussion and debate. And that's exactly how the people who authored those Bible stories used them for themselves.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Because they used the stories for and among themselves. They didn't create them to control or exploit others. Why would they be deliberately lying to themselves and each other?

How did you determine for what intent they were used in the very beginning ?
You should heed your own words. Do not confuse what you presume to know with what you do know.

The authors made no such claim.

People author fictitious stories all the time; delivered in such a way as to imply that the events "actually happened". And yet most people understand that they did not actually happen that way. Still, we are able to discern the ideological purpose of the story if we are willing to give it some honest consideration, and maybe a little discussion and debate. And that's exactly how the people who authored those Bible stories used them for themselves.

It was unnecessary to make such claim.

There is a tradition of regarding the Torah, irrespective if interpreting it literally or not, as coming from God.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
This is an area I hadn't considered. Thank you. Maybe you can explain this passage in Genesis to me, and clear up my confusion.

" And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever": Gen.3:22

Who is US
To clear up your confusion it would be necessary for you to approach the Bible with a belief that it is truth. If you don't believe that, it will never make sense.

1Cor 1:18,

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.​

If you are sincerely searching for truth, God will make it know to you via the scriptures. Regardless, I'll tell try to answer your questions the best I can. Google "royal we." Tradition may say trinity, but I addressed tradition vs truth earlier.

and why would God not want his creation to live forever? I'm simply curious.

After their disobedience life took a bad turn for Adam and Eve.

Gen 3:16-19,

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Had they eaten of the tree of life they would have gone on for eternity in their fallen state. That's not what God wanted. He made plans to give them a new body in a new heaven and earth which will come to pass in the book of Revelations. To get the new body, the old one had to die, hence the need to prevent them from living forever in their fallen body state. The 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians goes into some detail if you are curious.

So if you believe the Bible is truth, these answers should make sense. If you don't believe it, they may not, but it's the best I can do. Take care...
 

PureX

Veteran Member
How did you determine for what intent they were used in the very beginning ?
We know historically that this is how they used these stories.
There is a tradition of regarding the Torah, irrespective if interpreting it literally or not, as coming from God.
Not directly or word-for-word. There is a BIG difference between being "inspired by God" but written by men and being "written by God" controlling men's minds and hands.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
We know historically that this is how they used these stories.

They who ? The ones that came up with those stories ?
We who ? What is your source for this claim ?

You can't track down the origins of such old stories to any particular individual, let alone figure out what he had on his mind when he created the story. At best, and even that is hard to show depending on how far back you go, you can tell me how it was used later on by other individuals.

Not directly or word-for-word. There is a BIG difference between being "inspired by God" but written by men and being "written by God" controlling men's minds and hands.

"According to rabbinic tradition, all of the teachings found in the Torah, both written and oral, were given by God through the prophet Moses, some at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah that exists today." - Source

Do I need to say anything else ?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Secondly, most of the people who read those religious stories about talking snakes and so on understand that they are mythical, symbolic, and metaphorical mechanisms for conveying otherwise difficult, complex, metaphysical ideals. All literature, not just religious literature, is replete with similar literary mechanisms with similar literary intentions even though the ideals being conveyed may be of a different intellectual category.

It's the not insignificant minority however, - those who take scripture close to literally - that cause a lot of freakin' trouble.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you for your well said comments. Out of curiosity, maybe you can expand on "Liberal Christians"?
Free from belief that sin is a transferable substance, belief that babies are guilty of original sin and free from belief in eternal torments. Generally most liberal christians believe in fellowship of all people not just other christians. Its a vague term but those are some usual properties.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
and that reality?......as in following your body into the grave?

You commonly conflate beliefs on reality and reality.
Our belief in God or an afterlife has no impact on their existence (or lack thereof)
If God wants to punish me, and he's some omnipotent being, then so be it. I'd prefer to live as I think is right and assume God is either non-existent or larger than many paint him. You are, of course, entirely free to make your own call.
 
Top